U.S. Mulls Over More Possible Targets For Syria Strike The Pentagon has been focusing on the Syrian military's command-and-control sites, which remain the most likely focus of any U.S. strike. But military planners have begun to add new targets, such as mobile missile launchers, that could require more than cruise missiles — and make the mission more complicated.

U.S. Mulls Over More Possible Targets For Syria Strike

  • Download
  • <iframe src="https://www.npr.org/player/embed/220719616/220769826" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript


While Senator Collins and other lawmakers consider whether or not to support a military strike, President Obama is ramping up his campaign to gather support. The president will do several TV interviews today and give an address to the nation on Tuesday. Meanwhile, the Pentagon continues to plan. NPR's Larry Abramson reports on what the military targets are likely to be if those strikes take place.

LARRY ABRAMSON, BYLINE: The Pentagon has been focused on attacking Syria with so-called standoff weapons, like cruise missiles. Launched from ships, they can attack Syrian positions without placing American pilots in danger. Cruise missiles are very precise, and perfect for hitting fixed targets, like command-and-control centers the Syrian military relies on.

Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies says hitting those targets is still the best way to deter the use of chemical weapons and to weaken the Syrian military in general.

DR. ANTHONY CORDESMAN: If you take out key command-and-control facilities, you weaken every aspect of a military operation.

ABRAMSON: Since that initial target list was drawn up, the Pentagon has broadened it. In part, that's a response to Congress. The language of a measure moving through the Senate now says it is U.S. policy to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict. So U.S. planners might add the regime's arsenal of missile sites, many on mobile launchers.

That won't be easy. The Syrian military has had plenty of time to move those assets around. So Jeremy Binney of Jane's Defence Weekly says trying to take out those weapons creates two problems.

JEREMY BINNEY: Just because keeping track of all those can be challenging from an intelligence point of view, but also if they move them into civilian areas, there's going to be that risk of collateral damage.

ABRAMSON: But the military may also add targets that, in addition to weakening Assad, will strengthen the rebels. Jeremy Binney says Pentagon planners may well decide to take out Syria's military helicopter fleet.

BINNEY: That would really limit their ability to keep resupply some of these garrisons that are under siege, especially up in the North. Part of the battle really here has been seemingly a Syrian strategy in trying to keep these outposts resupplied.

ABRAMSON: But in this limited strike, expanding the list of targets probably won't be enough to tip the balance in favor of the rebels, according to Anthony Cordesman of CSIS. He believes the intervention might well move to a second phase.

CORDESMAN: A follow-up to cruise missile strikes may well be more money, more weapons, different types of weapons to the rebels with a real focus only on the moderate rebel groups.

ABRAMSON: The U.S. has been trying to get weapons to the rebels for months with little success. Relying on a rebel army is one option the U.S. did not have during the last confrontation over chemical weapons. In 1998, the U.S. launched Operation Desert Fox after Iraqi President Saddam Hussein refused to let the United Nations inspect his chemical weapons facilities.

The mission was similar. The U.S. used cruise missiles and bombing raids to deter and degrade Saddam's ability to use weapons of mass destruction. Mark Conversino of the Air War College says then, as now, it's difficult to define success for that kind of military mission.

DR. MARK CONVERSINO: Degrading is a pretty elastic term. After even a handful of successful sorties, you can say, well, we've degraded that.

ABRAMSON: Conversino says, by many measures, Desert Fox did erode Saddam's ability to deploy chemical weapons. Nevertheless, five years later, he was still in power, and the U.S. ended up launching a full-scale invasion. Larry Abramson, NPR News.




Copyright © 2013 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.